Keir Starmer, the Director of Public Prosecutions, must have been relieved by the conclusions of the report, but many activists are left dissatisfied.

The DPP was keen to highlight the report's verdict that the failure to disclose the evidence was not "deliberate, still less dishonest".

In essence, Rose found that the failure was the fault of a few individuals, and was not systemic. He was only commissioned by the DPP to look at this one case.

This has not mollified activists who are critical of the legal establishment which they believe is seeking to limit the controversy to one case and a fall-guy.

Dan Glass, one of the Ratcliffe defendants, said, "The Ratcliffe case was one of the most sophisticated policing operations in recent history involving a four-month investigation culminating in the largest pre-emptive arrest in British legal history. For this report to claim that when the question of disclosure arose, every time, every person associated with the case suddenly became incompetent, but institutionally everything is fine is totally absurd. This report can be added to the great litany of British judicial whitewashes."

They point to other cases in which the involvement of undercover police officers has allegedly been kept secret. They want a more comprehensive inquiry to get to the bottom of these allegations. They want to know if other people have been convicted in trials corrupted by the hidden involvement of police spies.

It is a demand repeatedly rebuffed by Starmer this week. As he toured the television studios, Starmer came under some pressure to justify that stance.